Published: Thursday, 25 May 2023 1:082 PM

Discussing an unanswerable question.

We've gotten down to it, but it's not a concept I've really given much thought to.

That the God we're talking of is unique to each individual.

So, the Schizophrenic is kind of there.

So, the Christian God in that concept, technically, is the collective opinion of a couple of

billion people.

Okay, I need to ingest that.

We're struggling with the concept.

And how to fit the one true God notion or theory.

One true God of the Catholic system is the God as interpreted by a group of men in the

Vatican.

And other religions do it differently, that's all.

I don't think any of the others are as sophisticated enough to have a nation-state or statehood.

So, God has morphed from being that which caused the Big Bang, if we're happy with the

Big Bang theory.

Yeah, we're going with that for the moment.

Getting modified, I think, over time.

Or refined.

Given how to understand the truths of science, that's all.

Answering questions makes a big part of that.

Even difficult questions.

Which the multi-schizophrenic God concluded.

Yeah, we have.

We've got it to be multi-personality in a manner.

Sure.

Shh.

That was a quick walk.

I'm just blown away on the multilink.

The schizophrenics aspect of it.

Mmm.

But it's helped me with that question where it says,

or the guard of the gaps, that needs to change to,

we've got the universal guard and then we've got the one true guard.

Which is what we live under.

That's what we live under.

That's what I'm trying to...

Which one true guard are we with the name of?

Well, the one...

You ask a Muslim and I'll tell you which.

I'm the one we...

Well, because I couldn't get the other one wrong.

Because the number...

The number hasn't changed?

Oh, I've done it wrong.

I tried.

Alright.

Is that what makes way bigger files?

This one, yes it does.

Yeah, I can compress it down.

Yeah.

Um.

Mmm.

Mmm.

Did you speak?

Sorry, did you say something?

Eh?

Did you say something?

No, no, no, I'm just trying to fathom my way into the notion a bit more.

Um.

Like, I think the guard you're talking about is the guard written in the Bible.

Well, yes, that's correct.

I think the question is how does one derive the guard of the gaps from the Bible?

Yeah, no, I think the guard of the gaps is not the right thing.

Or the universal guard then?

The Christian guard.

You've got to identify.

Right, right, but so all the guards that we're talking about, whether it's the Islamic one, whether it's the Judaic one, whether it's the Christian one, there's a guard.

That's the universal guard we're talking here or?

Well, I think Muslims disagree about who is that. They think that Jesus was just a disciple basically.

Yeah, yeah.

So they've got a different identity.

Of their one true God.

Which still seems to largely refer to the same concept of a creator, like the same concept of creator, they're just attributed to a different person.

It's years ago only where the others been in existence much, much longer.

It's just another variant.

That's why there's what are there , or ,, I don't know how many.

I think , variants at some stage.

So bit float.

Sorry, bit integer.

They could also have negative .

Which then, if you then make the second God, the Christian God, which, which

defines the society that we live in.

Depends if you're using an unsigned or assigned integer.

Sorry, that's just a silly programming joke.

Yeah.

Very good.

We've got the universal God.

And then we're looking for the connection between that and the multifaceted.

The schizophrenic God.

That claims to be the one true God.

So the difference, the trouble I'm thinking we're running into here is that the universal God is a different concept to God, the creator of the universe.

Okay.

But we got to that universal God through the creation of the Big Bang.

Well, it is a byproduct of the God of the gaps.

We cannot adequately explain the Big Bang.

Right.

Therefore God.

The universal God is a God before then.

So as a byproduct, it's the best place to look for God from a scientific perspective.

Well, we've chased him out of everywhere else.

He's not in the atom.

Yes.

I don't know whatever else.

So then.

Then.

I mean, I get to look at it from the from the.

Monarchy involved and and there's the crown is one in the papacy of the Noah.

Almost in opposition.

Well, they had been for several hundred years now.

But in opposition, I've had to apply the same who controls the entity.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And they disagree about exactly what that same person, creative person says, despite

them.
Oh, but he's endless.
Yeah.

Yeah.

There is so so in in in an actual sense, that argument led us to the position where there's

a protocol established between the two monarchs or monarchies that says, well, as a matter

of protocol, we won't interfere with what you do if you don't interfere with what we

do.

And that's been the understanding in effect in a manner broadly speaking.

Probably a remnant of the time when the the hegemon could have had enough military might

to roam and the church against England.

It's a bit of a truce thing.

You know, like we could come and colonize you and tell you guys how the real God is.

But let's just let's just both say God's working pretty good for both of us.

Let's just agree to disagree in effect and we won't look into your backyard and your

dealings.

Yeah.

And that's that's pretty descriptive of the circumstance we're in.

And I then point to things like the members of the Commonwealth and New Zealand as the

example I use because it states very, very clearly and it uses the term twice in the

opening statement of the letters patent into the Royal Commission into the equivalent of

institutional abuses of responses to the sexual abuse of children.

Yeah.

And it's it it states that the Queen Elizabeth at the time as the defender of the faith

authorizes between her and God.

Oh, it's her as God.

She is.

Well, no, she doesn't say no.

It's her and.

Yeah.

OK, so she brings the she's the voice through which her God's speech.

She puts a crown on then.

Yeah.

So it's yeah, she's so the crown.

Maybe there was a former wife.

I know it's got to be metal.

So it's got to be.

It could be it's got gold.

They probably have to address the residents because Charles has probably got a bigger head.

Do you realize how many time and frequency residents the same.

So they're going to have to be many cycles of fractions of a diamond oscillates at.

This is where the diamonds oscillate.

Yes.

This is where you get a crystal set from every crystal oscillates.

Crystals also matters to my understanding.

This is why we make the crystal.

I mean, it's a product of many crystals.

The temperature of this is the product of its vibrations of the atoms inside of it.

Well, we're looking for means.

We're looking for means.

And when you've got big crystals obviously on display and they're multicolored and multidimensional capabilities.

Oh, no.

This is the best connection.

Putting the crown on.

On one, on the other.

Well, I tell you now the Catholics have been around longer because they've moved past gold and they've gone straight to cloth.

No.

Well, they're replicating the address of Dagon.

Yeah, the fish are going.

Well, that's what the mitre is.

And then they all go back to paganism, so.

Well, I've gone beyond Dagon just to say that it was an historic god.

Yeah, there's not a reason for it.

It's none of its original in that sense.

So it may have the same magical connectability.

Does it connect or does it?

That's what I'm saying.

You can tell Catholicism's been around longer because they had the gold and then they thought, oh, well, we've got a more advanced technology.

We figured out how to do the Wi-Fi with cloth instead of metal.

Right.

Right.

In the radioactive fabric or something.

In the radioactive thread.

Nanomaterials.

So this makes the chosen individuals, the head, the crown.

Get the antenna.

You've got to plug your TV in.

You've got to plug your code in.

You've got to put your crown on.

You're jimed well, huh?

Yeah.

You're Dagon fish end.

Many of those things.

So that's a very important thing in.

Yeah, just watch the video about how important that's all about.

Oh, I think there are going to be many, many historic examples.

And I don't think there's a culture that is that.

I think we're moving away from the point that.

Well, I'm just looking for the means of connection from the universal God that we've established to the one true that we live under.

It's someone trying to integrate either a, the society or culture they find themselves living in versus the sign to the fact of, oh, we can see the cosmic background microwave radiation.

It's like, how does that get there?

You have to pass that by me again.

The universal God is simply an expansion or the final corruption of a late term corruption of the God of the gaps.

Like I said before, like I said before, it's an extension of the God of the gaps.

We cannot adequately explain the Big Bang.

Therefore it is God.

We can't explain that we're hard and have numbers and like white, white is white.

White and numbers seem to have this sort of fractal nature, you know, like why is there patterns and stuff?

Why is that the case?

Why not just have it all be random?

Reality is all random.

It's quantum effects producing a deterministic outcome based on the conditions of impossible things happening all the time.

Well, evidently they're not impossible otherwise they wouldn't happen.

Well, claimed impossible things happening all the time.

I don't know what you're alluding to but...

Oh, and it doesn't, I don't have to be that precise.

But anyway...

Sure, if we want to just make up stuff.

Well...

If you're just going to throw something out and then not define it then...

Well, I could digress out there.

It's your question so it's up to you.

I could digress out there but it wouldn't take me any nearer to answering my question.

Which is?

My question is that we've defined the universal God, the supreme being, if that's what you want to call it, right?

And we position that in our understanding of time at a certain point.

It's quite a distance from us.

And we move forward in time and from a small region in the Middle East we have a connection made somehow such that individuals rise to the top

and they make their claims that they have this sacred knowledge and connection with this universal God.

Okay?

And all I'm trying to...

But the universal God that you're talking about is not...

That's what I'm saying, you're making a contradiction in terms.

The universal God does not refer to the God that created the universe.

Oh, I thought that's good.

They're roundabout, like, no Christian will disagree that God created the universe. That is not the universal creator.

Just hang on.

So, they're claiming...

The universal God is a loose reading of Christian ideology as applied to current scientific understanding.

Imagine a scientific Christian, someone who says that things . billion years old but there's still a God.

Which directly disagrees with their text.

And then there's the other person, the Wilcox, that says, no, it's , years.

And the Big Bang is just a test, it's like the dinosaurs.

Right. Right.

So, both answers can't be true.

Only one of those answers can be true.

In effect, at least the...

Well, so there's several premises.

One, the universe was created, it didn't always exist.

There was a point in time at which the universe didn't exist and then after that point it does.

Second is that there is a being or person associated with that creation.

Right.

Why, we have to promote that action.

It would probably be de-ify because you're going to...

We de-ify it. Okay. Yep.

By using the anthropomorphising process that we have.

Well, at which point you then say the third argument...

Sorry, sorry.

The first argument, there was a point at which the universe didn't exist and then it did.

Yep.

It was created at some point, it didn't always exist.

It came into existence.

Yeah.

Yep.

Second is that there is a being or consciousness or somebody outside of the universe associated or making that happen.

A cause.

Either just the universe itself decided, yep, I'm going to do a big bang today.

Right.

Or God said, right, today we're going to do the light and that's the first day.

Or this was the instrument of the cause.

There was some instrument outside of the universe itself which created the universe.

And then the third assumption is...

Just do that.

The third assumption is... Hang on, let me put the third premise.

The third premise is that God that is a being.

Just, there's a thought on what you said with regards to the God existing outside of the universe and decides to create the universe.

Okay.

And now, and now, this could explain some disappearances, but now that God has populated the universe it created...

That's a fourth premise.

Of which?

That's a fourth premise.

Fourth, yeah. It's one I hadn't considered.

Because, so does that mean it has depopulated that which is outside the universe?

Why would that imply?

Well that's where it came from.

There was no mention of depopulation.

No, I'm wondering whether there are multiple creation gods in effect.

That would be a fifth assertion.

There is more than one being and universe associated with that being.

So there are multiple beings that create multiple separate universes.

Well, that's possible under that scenario.

Or there is more than one universe being combination.

So that could go towards a rebounding big bang.

No, that's a totally separate argument.

Well, I think it could be...

Could you reach diverging points? Because in one case you're arguing that there are several separate ones and then...

Now you're saying those separate ones are actually the one just occurring. It's a different argument.

No, I'm not saying that at all.

Multiverse is the associate. Is that an assertion?

No, that's a multiverse.

What are you saying then?

I'm saying a rebounding.

So then that's the...

That's just a multiverse in a linear sequence rather than in a...

Okay.

Does the... You can then make a sixth premise.

Sure.

In each universe create a combination, do the same more to the universe of life.

Is gravity always what gravity is? Or is it something different in the different good creative universe?

It's either the recreation or the creation mode.

Either the multiverses or the sequential big bangs.

Yeah, okay.

On the second big bang is gravity twice as strong?

Could be, maybe.

Well, that's Hawking's assertion basically.

Yeah, and I understand.

Quantum effects.

Chaos effects.

Sure.

Let me have a bath, please.

And that's all acceptable to postulate, to see rise, and even think about if you wanted to.

My question still exists.

Just because you choose not to accept it.

They're two different concepts.

Yes, exactly. That's why...

That's why I'm saying it's schizophrenic.

And I agree with you.

So then why are we still discussing it?

Well, because of the prompt that we were constructing.

I thought that answered the prompt.

No. I thought that I was looking at a better way to describe this in the prompt.

Yeah, well, that's what I was saying. How do you derive the universal God from the God in the Bible?

Okay, going that way, right. Right. I go from the... I was coming from the other way.

How does the Bible produce the universal God?

Yeah, it's a client connection.

It doesn't have a connection, church, does it? How's that?

No, it doesn't.

Yes, it does.

The Catholic Church?

Yeah.

This is how it's what?

The big bang.

No, doesn't.

No, really.

Check it out.

What are you saying? It's schizophrenic.

No, it did. It took it on board.

How long ago?

Maybe five or six years ago.

And it precisely says my point. Schizophrenic.

Yes, no problem.

So then why are we arguing?

Not discussing, like...

So they've made this claim.

Who has?

The church has made this claim.

But they've also made the opposite claim.

They had been done for a thousand or more years.

So which is the case?

Well, the current case.

Right, and so if the Pope changes, does that change?

It potentially could.

It in fact would, yes.

Well, I don't know whether it would.

That's the job of the Pope, is to change it, yes.

Oh, I didn't know that it was that.

Is to interpret the scripts and hear from God, that's his job.

Right.

Gift decrees.

Right, right.

So...

So...

It just goes back to my question.

That they're the franchisee...

claiming authority and connection with the universal God.

Not the universal God.

Not the universal God.

The Christian God.

Well...

The Catholic God.

The Catholic God is trying to absorb the universal God.

No, that's precisely the point of ideology.

Okay.

Okay.

That is the power of the church.

And why they update it to say, oh yeah, the universe is ..

Because now I can say, oh, I've got my universal God that did the . billion.

Because the church has found things to say relevant, because there's too much information

out there that readily disproves claims made in the Bible.

Or at least claims made by the church in so far as how old is the earth or whatever.

You can go and look at fossils and say, what the fuck.

Whereas previously you've got to know someone who's...

You've got to meet the ologist and then go to the place and look at the fossils, have him explain it,

go and do the research and find out, oh yeah, is rocks really work how they serve them?

Right.

So now you can just do that in an afternoon.

Eh?

Now you can just do that in an afternoon.

Sure, I understand that.

And so how does a church that, in the face of all the information, maintain the elements?

Ah, that's a different question.

I think that's precisely the same question.

Well, no, I would get a very different answer.

Okay.

You enshrine power in your constitution and...

That comes back to the King James Bible though.

That's correct.

Which isn't the Catholic Bible.

No, this is Australia I'm talking about.

Yes, yeah.

Before I got to King James, yeah.

Yeah.

This was an argument I raised with Patrick.

What am I sitting on?

It caused some big grave concern apparently.

Because in the historic viewpoint from the papacy,

the Royal Commission was considered by people like Albert

to be a continuation of the state of conflict that existed,

or exists between the monarchy, the Catholic Church and the British monarchy.

I would absolutely feel tiny of it on that.

Yeah.

And that then...

Pretty much that only, but yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Okay.

And that then allows the Catholic Church to apply its doctrines

and it applies a number.

There's the principle of double effect.

There's lying without lying, which is mental reservation.

And then there's the papal command of secrecy, criminal actions,

deemed to be religious doctrine.

The freedom of religion laws, they're free to practice that way.

Not anymore.

Well, they are.

They just don't have to report it.

They just have to report it.

But that undermines the way that they get around that now,

is they've got the Melbourne process, they've got the police officers...

The Melbourne process, no longer in there.

Sure, but the things are also towards healing or whatever it is,

or whatever it is called now, like...

The whatever is not redress.

I understand that.

Yeah, I know.

I forget what I was talking about.

Yeah, you've got the police thing.

And they direct people away from reporting to police

and instead they're like,

look, we do have to report this, but we could just deal with it

in a bit of an informal thing and then it doesn't have to go all over the media

and doesn't have to go to court and legal argument.

Think about how stressful that would be for you.

As opposed to, oh, you actually get your fucking rights respected.

Yeah, so you're describing how...

How is your time in court?

Different ways.

The cover-up we commonly refer to as sort of processes has works.

Right, and then I come back to what are the arms that prevent...

that allow this to happen?

Ah.

So, yes, the church, but only the church because the state allows the church to operate.

And enables the church to operate.

It does enable.

And that goes to the best for a moment.

But that's a really nice text.

For a moment I could continue.

Thank you.

Where the mistake, in my opinion, is made

and how it can be remedied,

so there's two things there.

And the first mistake is that...

that the freedom of religion, this , is a variant on the...

I forget which one of the Americans, one, we wrote it differently.

And there is an historic reason.

There's a priest in the US where the Catholic Church was kicked out, so to speak.

And I'm going to...

I've lost my train a bit, but...

I'll come back to that.

This is the first freedom of religion.

And that has been abused, in my view.

Oh, absolutely, yes.

And the second is that we trade with this state.

Which... what do we trade with, by the way?

That's why we have an embassy at the Holy See.

This is what an embassy should roll with, to facilitate trade and negotiations.

Negotiations. I don't think we have really...

They're very beneficial.

I understand, but I don't think we have any economic relationship, particularly with Vatican.

Like what products are valid at the end?

One depends on what you call product.

Yes, from their perspective...

An economic product.

From their perspective, they hold a very different opinion than what I do.

Nevertheless, the fact I'm trying to get to is that we, through our state and federal governments,

we fund education systems, and we fund health and care services for the population.

And we channel that through these religious charities.

And taking the Catholic Church as an example, they allow that entity to enforce their belief system.

To a degree.

To a degree.

In some situations, yes and no.

That's correct.

But I do still take issue with it, yes.

Yeah, yeah.

And so I finish up in the circumstance, and not just me, this half the population.

Well if James wants to go and get...

Imagine if James, when James gets old, and he's working this...

Yeah.

Going fucking Catholic.

Yeah.

Even if the Pope decides that gay marriage is okay, it doesn't mean so, but all the Catholics...

It's really irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant, that's precisely...

Well, to be...

It's discriminatory, and that is a reason why.

Just because he's not abused doesn't mean he doesn't have reasons to not want to be a real Catholic.

Because the...

That question takes me to the DSM, and that's a different line of looking at that.

Um...

DSM, it's the same point, you're arguing from cultural hegemony.

Yeah, I understand that.

Which is everyone's argument against DSM.

Written predominantly by men, up until like years ago or something.

Exclusively by men, I believe.

Was it?

Yeah, so you end up with fucking women being classified as paranoia, like having paranoia rather than just having fucking...

Oh, well, they just do that indeed.

Yep.

That's...

You're talking psychiatry, not necessarily the DSM.

Same.

Because the DSM is a product of that system.

Yeah.

Same shit, different day.

So we're unable at this stage to find the...

Because this is the way the argument becomes topic, or the system, the method, or the result of the outcome.

Is that the universal God is...

We're asked to define what is God, and then we get the universal God as our description.

Not possible when yet.

Right.

We say at this point, we're happy to say, this is God.

And this is because we don't have an answer.

We've run out of answers.

It's a blank spot in the brain, in the mind.

Yeah, it's an argument for ignorance.

Yeah.

Okay.

Or it can also just be an argument of personal belief.

Again, the universal God is a bigger concept than just the Christian God.

It is...

I'm no argument with that at all.

But I'm saying you can have an Islamic universal God, you can have a fucking pagan universal God, you can have an Atlantic fucking Egyptian whatever.

I understand that.

The point is, it's a liberalized fucking reading of an a theological text.

First, the implication of agard.

Posit that agard exists.

Don't give it a form, shape, or definition. Just the word God, and that exists.

Right.

At that point, any person of any faith, Hindu, fucking whatever, can apply their own meaning.

Even an atheist can say, sure, go to the gaps.

I don't care about the Bible, Hindu, Islam, whatever.

Let's just say that, isn't it magical that things just worked out the way they are?

Yes, maths, and sure, whatever else.

I don't believe in agard, but certainly I look at the world and I'm like, wow, that's amazing.

And realistically, math, science, whatever else, is simply a quantization of and inquiry into the world that we find ourselves in.

Maths and science do not define the universe, the universe defines maths and science.

Do you know what I mean?

I can...

And so the force of the universe applying a structure to itself, that is the concept of a universal God.

Right.

People can apply their own ideology to which God and how and why they're doing that, but that is the concept of a universal God.

So just by applying that by a group, this is where they get their authority.

It's what I'm trying to see where they get their authority.

Sure. I mean, you can argue that science and math have some sort of teleological or theological argument that because, you know, we have observed this,

then we need to rule society by math and science.

But then what's the theological?

Teleological?

Yes.

That's not logical, I was thinking. Sorry.

So they're all sort of in the same...

There are further different types of logical arguments.

So a teleological argument involves the explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve rather than the cause by which they arise.

Let me just read that again.

It said, a teleological argument involves the explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve rather than of the cause by which they arise.

Exactly.

For example, take the long neck of giraffes. A shorthand teleological explanation of this trait might be that evolution gave giraffes long necks for the purposes of reaching less competitive food sources.

Right. Let's go back and read that sentence again for me and stop before the giraffe, if you don't mind.

Involving the explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve rather than of the cause by which they arise.

Right.

The purpose rather than the cause.

The purpose...

Right. And that's the doctrine of double effect that the Catholic Church comes up with in a manner it's connected, it's a product of or related in some manner.

The thing is, we might call it intent. My intention was good and I'm sorry for the harm I caused.

No, because again, the teleological argument would then say, well, unfortunately your outcome was bad and even if you had the good intent you still did the bad thing.

But this is where when you move in the Catholic world with the forgiveness process, because your intention was good, there then we forgive you.

Yeah, I mean it's an obvious technological fallacy.

It's obviously a logical fallacy, yes.

Yeah, so the teleological argument is an attempt to prove the existence of God that begins with the observation of the purposeness of nature.

Sorry.

Sorry.

I'm trying to come at it from the Catholic perspective.

Because what they do is that they have to pre-morphise into the Christian concept or the religious Catholic concept.

And he's a priest who firstly is accused.

And that's done apparently for a number of reasons.

Yeah, you can make a teleological argument as the Church, sure.

Any person of that authority is acting as the arm of God, therefore.

Where was I?

Sorry, I'm somewhere else.

That the priest is accused by someone.

Okay.

And the word of God is true, therefore I must believe the priest and what can cause this person to accuse the priest.

This man may be driven by the devil.

Yeah.

So that's the need for casting out of demons and sin and the conflict and the like.

Or just of the person from the society generally.

Well, they're usually first, yes.

That's the first thing there.

Well, no, that's not the first thing.

No, the first thing is you...

Set a secret church against them.

Yeah, well you coerce them in a manner and you make threats.

You publicly out them?

Yes, and you block them and stymie them at every opportunity.

There you prevent their success in life wherever possible.

Wherever you encounter it because you can't allow these...

Because it's a teleological argument.

Well, the teleological argument, you say the priest act first, God is divine, whatever he says goes.

Second, the bishop is hand of God, therefore everything the bishop does is what God says and is good.

So that's the premise, the premise, the conclusion.

The bishop can do anything because God says so.

And the pope.

Well, it applies to anyone.

Anyone in that position can do it because God says so.

So this could be put under the term...

But it still doesn't matter whether or not God is real, it's the fact that someone uses that concept as a tool.

It's like a gun, you can find...

Sure.

And same in the outing, you flip the argument and say, oh well...

Sorry, right, so that's the other one.

And in the case that you say about the accuser, they start backwards and say...

No, sorry, this is right.

This bishop has been accused of abuse.

Bishops can't do abuse because everything they do is good according to God.

Therefore, this person is lying or making it up, whatever.

So it's hundreds of so bishops that have been convicted.

That would be a clerical error.

Well, it's that or the state that doesn't fire the crown.

Oh, probably the devil, really. And the crown has the devil, really.

Well, being manipulated by the devil almost now.

Well, I mean, that's how they ended up having a separate religion to Catholicism.

I mean, you're not following a true word of the Catholic God, but you're just doing the devil, really.

That's right.

Yeah, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Yes, it is.

And it's sick.

Oh, yeah.

And then, so I go on to my argument that we get to live in a circumstance where governments provide billions of dollars,

through these religious systems, and they allow them to apply their doctrinal beliefs to secular Australians.

But, again, following this, it resumes, A, that Australia is or has ever been secular.

It claims to be.

Yeah, secular to what?

Just secular.

It claims to be independent of the ones.

Other than the one that colonized it?

No, that's done under .

It wasn't done under . didn't exist when colonization.

Colonization, sorry. That was done under the King James Version.

Right, but then how can you found a country on a Bible and how it'd be secular?

It claims to function on a secular level for the people.

It promotes itself and its literature as a secular country.

But I can say I'm secular all day.

Sure, I understand that. And then we say, let's not cross time, we need to go to prayer.

That would still fulfill the criteria of secular.

In fact, go to prayer after what you've been.

In that ideal.

You would in fact go to prayer mid-parliament and still be secular.

It would be preferable to do that, rather than actually just do a dream of constitution and politics.

That's why there's argument about prayer in the parliament.

I didn't say in parliament.

Just if I can. I did.

And I do think it's appropriate.

No, I don't think it's appropriate to do your prayer in the parliament.

I do too.

But we have it.

Ostensibly, I guess. I don't know.

Well, we do. We have it. That's a fact.

I've never looked it up, sir.

Right. We do have it.

Yeah, I'll take you out to work.

I think if you've got an Islamic MP or something, they should be allowed to take a break from parliament and go to the midday prayer or whatever.

But not in the parliament room. You're not doing politics there. You're doing religion.

You've got to do that outside the politics and politics.

I wouldn't have any problem with an interfaith room.

Christians can go there, Muslims can go there.

Just like if you want, you have a little room for doing prayer. And if you can't get along with it, I'll share your room.

If I can.

We do have that in our parliament in Canberra.

Sure.

And that became the subject of, I think, some of the press descriptions were that they did name the guy and elected whoever who...

Marine Freaky?

...stood on a table or a desk and masturbated.

Oh, that was... Yeah, yeah.

And that was apparently a favoured room.

Yeah, that's where everyone went to go in the car.

The lacious encounters, one could say.

Sure, yeah.

But then is that a critique of the faith room or is that a critique of the people that use it?

It makes me question the so-called democratic and election process.

Why should that...

Why?

If it's democratic, then anyone should be able to be elected.

That's why I say it causes me to question that process.

Because we finish up with dickheads, we finish up with criminals...

And a false premise, though.

How do those people end up being elected?

That's why I question it. I don't know the answer, but I question it.

I think what you should be questioning is... Yeah, I mean, sure.

Yeah, I don't think democracy is a thing that needs questioning.

I think it is these people's actions.

I don't think democracy is the issue with that in that equation.

Well, before I make that statement, I look at what sort of democracy Australia has.

And I say, well, what sort of democracy does Australia have?

I guess one argument would be a constitutional democracy, and the other argument would be...

Well, is it a...

What do they call it in Australia?

It's a...

Parliamentary.

A parliamentary democracy.

I thought that was democracy.

No, it means that we have democracy within the Parliament.

Within the Parliament? So then what is wording?

Ah, that's a process, does the Parliament allow us? Yes.

That's not within Parliament.

It's not within Parliament. It's outside the process that goes outside the Parliament.

It's the main democracy bit.

It's the so-called part where voters get to elect. Yes.

That is the democracy part, yeah.

OK. So in my questioning of it, that process is one thing that I question,

and the other is I question the process that's called democracy,

and this is... we have a representative democracy.

Which, again, I have no particular issue with, and will always end up like you cannot...

You can have a direct democracy, but what about people who are not capable of...

Well, I'm not too sure about your concern. I'm trying to describe my thinking.

OK, so what is... OK.

At some point, you will need to have one person standing for the purpose and clause...

Under this form of governance...

Under any form, because, like I said, there has to be...

Excuse me.

Why?

That's why I came back to say I was trying to describe my thoughts there, in that regard.

I'm not sure about that.

But perhaps you've been...

Go on.

And I was questioning the process...

Of representative democracy.

Of doing a thing called democracy, and putting to place a system that elects one individual to represent all those,

and calls that democracy.

And I use Abbott, and I use John Howard, and I use SCOMO.

But are they not representative of the country?

Not in my view.

Perhaps not of you, but are they representative of, on average, the citizen at that time?

Um...

That's an interesting question.

That's precisely the point of democracy, you have representatives that statistically represent the people that work for them.

Just a moment.

Um...

That's...

The issue comes from...

Go on, go on.

Thanks. I was trying to formulate the question.

Thank you.

As I said, I was questioning that process.

Yeah, right.

Thank you.

Can I say something?

Go on.

So, like I said, I think the issue more generally comes down to things like where political boundaries are drawn.

Okay, I think differently about it. That's why I was trying to explore it.

Yeah, we're going on.

And in effect, if I use the language there, we go through a so-called...

I use that word specifically, those two words, so-called, and then to describe the democratic process whereby we elect a dictator.

It's not a dictator.

We elect an individual to a position...

Just look up the definition of dictator.

If I...

Uh-huh.

Uh-huh.

Uh-huh.

Uh-huh.

Uh-huh.

What?

Right. Read the word dictator out.

Okay, shots.

You need the...

Say what you want to say.

Okay, right.

We put all power into the hands of one individual.

No, we don't.

I'm going to say...

Separation of powers.

Just separation of powers with regards to what?

That is, separation of powers refers to the division of the state's government into, quote,

branches, each with separate independent powers and responsibilities, so that the powers of one branch are not in conflict with those of other branches.

No.

What?

Just...

Say what you want to say.

I want to talk to think through my minutes.

Okay.

The representative process can be...

has a number of rules. Please give me a...

I think I will, though.

Yeah, it does, like I said.

I agree with that, again.

Right. That's where I was trying to go.

And, in short, very fact...

What?

...when I talk with my...

Doesn't qualify...

You need to clarify.

No.

After four or five politicians, I'm not sure how many I have had contact with in Toowoomba.

Right.

I ran with Bay's office...

to ask about secular services that I could access.

And...

Inchquiff said something about...

I don't think it looked all well.

And I said I had rang them...

and asked them for a list of secular services.

And...

Yeah.

Yeah.

I may interject with...

that early after his election...

Albo, the current Prime Minister, spoke of...

used the word in a statement...

in the first few days of his election...

about the secular country.

I haven't heard him make that statement that I'll mention again.

Yeah.

But it was made there.

Seems pretty representative of average Australia to me, but...

Right.

What happens for an individual like me...

when I go to an individual like McBay...

who's my representative?

Okay?

Going to represent me.

No, he does represent you.

He represents Toowoomba, the average Toowoomba person.

Okay.

So I'm no longer average because of who my abusers were.

Absolutely.

Well, I mean...

not just because of who you're abusing, you're not just like...

nobody is statistically average.

That's correct.

So I'm a Toowoomba citizen.

Yeah.

You fall in the % of people that didn't elect...

Logan McBay.

Whatever that must be.

You voted for someone else?

Right.

Or didn't vote.

So I look at his drink...

and I see he has a Catholic history...

and then I...

I see he repeatedly expresses his joy at his...

familial connection with the Bishop of Rockhampton...

and he extols his faith.

Good day Craig.

Good day Craig.

Looking pretty sharp there, mate.

I like your jacket there.

Yeah.

Pretty good looking.

Oh, nice.

Beautiful day.

Starting to get warm though.

Alright.

Starting to get warm in that sun.

Yeah.

It's cold this morning.

Ah, cold as buggery, yeah.

What was that?

Very cold, yeah.

I'll be ready to calm in my own mind.

Oh, I wish it would hurry up and just stay warm.

I'm just keen for summer again.

No worries mate.

Yeah, no winter.

Just skip winter.

Yeah, not for me.

Oh man.

Yeah, I reckon.

Alrighty mate.

See you next time.

The f**king irony of this guy playing Take the Powerback.

What?

The irony of this guy next door listening to this fan is just...

What's that got to do with that?

Uh, he's the type of person that this fan hates.

Right.

It's an amite.

Yeah, I know.

It's a start.

It's a bit like you listening to church choral music.

For you.

It's an analogy.

Oh.

There's some people who like to be around me.

No, I don't think so.

Yeah, there's always going to be someone who's hearing something.

It's a bit of a cool...

Well, it's relevant to me that way.

Yeah, I mean it's just as relevant as your perspective.

It doesn't have any impact to me.

Yeah, I didn't say it did.

No.

It's just my attempt to communicate in the language you would understand.

Right.

I don't know the words, I don't know the band.

Yeah, it's not important.

That's why I tried to make the analogy.

Right.

So I come to the question of do I have a right to be fairly representative?

And that's where the word safety comes in.

Yeah, he should be able to put aside his faith and that's his job.

And his family, his job.

Right.

I think it's a systemic failure that there's not more or the strict enforcement of that.

And there are definitely lacking the adequate bodies to just the same as we run into the same like...

We've got human rights and all this stuff but then you can kick our people from asking for the mould to be fixed.

So...

It's not because there's a God.

It's because there's a God way back but ultimately it's...

It's at that point where a bias is introduced into the system and the blockage was...

I think you're correct in locating the bias at the voting booth.

But it comes back to a societal problem.

It comes back to a representation.

A cultural...

Sure.

But first of all, you've got...

Okay, so the premises.

You need to have someone who is from the population to represent the population.

So the first premise, the population needs to be represented.

Second is that one or a number of people should represent everyone in a given space.

Like, I mean, why doesn't the UN...

I mean, why is the UN crap?

And then why not just like...

Why draw these boundaries of, oh, this is Australia, this is fucking...

Like, if we all agree let's not do violence on each other then why draw the boundary and say you can't come in here?

No, that's commerce.

And it goes more than that but it's predominantly commerce.

But it's also like, you do commerce effectively under the flag of God.

Like, what is our problem with China?

Like, sure, on the surface, oh, I look at what they're doing with the Uyghurs and whatever else.

It's, you know, got underpaid workers and all this stuff but like...

We're not sure on that.

I mean, compared to China, relative...

Well, numbers are going to be much bigger in China.

No, percentage-wise I'm talking as well but...

I don't know whether I haven't seen the rate bounce on percentage-wise.

There is significantly more...

A significantly higher proportion of people in China living or working well below, you know, even a minimum wage.

As opposed to like...

Which is why we outsource everything to China.

I thought that, statistically, China was...

They've got a standard.

Sorry, when I finished...

Dan.

Thanks. I was halfway through saying something.

I know that. If you just kept going instead of being upset about it, then I wouldn't...

Because it breaks my...

Yeah, and now we've gone on into a big giant roundabout instead of just you finishing the sounds.

And I was trying to say that some statistics that I've seen point to China as bringing more people out of poverty.

Absolutely. I fully agree with that statement.

That's not specifically because of wages.

So...

And we've moved into another layer level of instances.

So, by comparison, and China's entitled to do so, it can point to things like,

Oh, look at your Christian religions.

They go about raising children. We just can't...

But the religion aside, because China effectively doesn't have a state religion.

It has communism as a state religion.

The equivalent is, look at what you do to children on Nauru.

Yeah, we do Uyghurs, but you guys do Christmas Island.

Yeah. And that happens.

Oh, absolutely.

I mean, we don't like it. And they don't like it.

Yeah, but what they say they don't like it.

It's just like...

It's a look at all the good work we do. It's like, well, you guys do a bad thing,

so we should be allowed to do a bad thing. It's like, no, nobody should be doing the bad thing.

Just because someone else does it is not your excuse.

It's like, you should use the fact that you don't do it as an example, lead by example, I think, is a good principle.

But we can't always do that.

So we just argue and point to things.

Why can we not do it? Like, really, like, OK, sure, let's say, oh, there's , bloody immigrants coming to Australia

and there's a housing shortage already and, you know, you've got all these fucking immigrants coming in taking the houses.

But in reality, like, is that the case?

Like, and why are there migrants coming here? Why?

For what purpose? Like, for what purpose does China want to take Taiwan?

For what purpose?

Does China want to take Taiwan?

To take Taiwan.

To actively invade Taiwan is what we're saying here. Is that what we're saying?

Well, invade and then run Taiwan as East China.

Right.

China is, I'm not too sure, the full history, Taiwan was a breakaway from the original Chinese people

and they hold with their notion that Taiwan remains part of China.

China says that, yeah.

China says that, that's great.

And...

China says the same thing about Japan, too.

About Japan?

Yeah, sort of like, yeah.

So Japan...

Bit of rivalry of who is the...

Oh, Japan says the same thing about Taiwan.

Japan says, you know, no.

No.

Japan doesn't care about Taiwan.

China says Japan was originally part of China.

Yeah.

Okay.

But I don't know.

It's in that history of the world, I guess.

Okay, I don't know. I wasn't aware that that was a claim that they were making.

Well, they tried to take it, they tried to colonize it all.

Or from Britain.

Big war support between China and Japan.

Okay, that may have occurred.

That may have occurred.

I didn't know that they made that...

...historic claim.

I don't know if it's the exact claim, but again, if you're fighting for territory, then you say it's yours.

Sorry. If you're in conflict, you may be invading, and you might not be...

...you might be trying to get your way back.

And when you put that sort of context to it, that would be the perspective of it.

But you would have to say, well, China has to have that perspective in some regard, because they've got a historic claim on this.

Well, they just have an expansionist mindset.

They just say, well, let's conquer the world.

That's another view.

Another view.

Why all the sign?

Because it's exclusive.

Why?

I don't know.

So, if you come to the question, does China have an expansionist history?

And do we think it has an expansionist intention?

Well, I guess the first question is, can one even determine that objectively?

Well, we can have a look at history, and there will be people who make different claims.

And we'd want to, say, have a look at major past forces there to see what now we describe expansionism.

So you'd have to look at the British Empire, and you'd have to look at Americanism, and Russia.

The Mongols?

Yes, that's China.

No, but, I mean, the Hindus, the Buddhists.

So there's a lot of history like that, that we can compare to.

Yeah, it just happens. You build a population, civilize, they increase beyond the holding passes, and we need to find somewhere else.

We need to look at the reasoning. Well, there's one reason. China's population is growing, so it may feel the need to...

Well, that's why they go and give all these loans out to people. You think, why is China giving away all this money?

So that they can employ the people, because most of the contracts require X percentage of Chinese workers.

B, building long-term reliant financial, or at least strengthening financial ties with countries outside of their fucking immediate geosphere, rather than just trading with Vietnam or whatever else.

Training partners, yeah?

But what are they doing?

But also, trading partners leads to political partners.

What are they doing in those countries?

In which countries?

In where they're doing projects.

So, they're building pretty good infrastructure. In pretty poor labour conditions, but...

Just say that again.

I said, seemingly building pretty good infrastructure in pretty poor labour conditions.

In countries with poor labour conditions? Or using poor labour conditions?

So they're building pretty good infrastructure. Railways, though, you think, is one of their big ones.

Byways, yeah.

Byways as well.

Power stations.

Power stations.

Like, probably concrete plants.

Hydro schemes.

Which, you know, obviously have their own way to problems with the environment stuff.

So, big project stuff.

Mega project.

Sure, yeah.

Okay, so...

Get some water, please.

Okay.

Okay.

Hmm.

Hmm.

I like their idea.

Well, I think that if I were in the position of premiering of a country with a . billion population,

and I had the wherewithal to build relationships with other countries,

I'd probably edit that direction.

So you should...

And, yeah, they're not all going to work well, and they will...

Probably every one of them will, because of the big dollars involved, will experience corruption.

That's how you manage that.

How well you can manage that.

But nevertheless, they're marketing themselves in a manner

as mega project providers.

Not a bad thing.

Well, and they're also doing... Look at all the good work we do.

They're actually doing something, yes.

Yeah, and there are many critiques of China.

And one can even question, does China even want to do communism,

or are they just trying to do capitalism really good?

Are they even doing communism?

Well, I haven't...

Well, that's the point.

I understand.

I understand the argument.

I look at it and say, well, they've built a road, they want to build the truck and the belt or something.

Belt and road, yeah.

That would be a green belt with road and rail, I believe.

And they were going to interconnect it.

It was a grand scheme based on the Silk Road concept,

which was a driver in human history,

because it was a major trade route and the concept from what I...

A different culture, particularly...

From what I have read,

and it may well be the propaganda thing,

that says it's come up with the grand concept that it would like to replicate

the success of the Silk Road around the world as a trading route.

I guess I must ask why.

Well, in the free enterprise world, it's the sort of thing you do.

Free enterprise by which you mean capitalism.

That's the type of world we live in, accordingly.

Free enterprise is considered to be a subset of capitalism.

Then I've perhaps not got the right descriptor.

No, you do have the right descriptor.

Right. Right.

So they're working in that principle and they're applying it,

and they seem to have some successes and failures.

And...

This is in contrast to years ago or so when they said,

we're not going to do capitalism.

Right. Okay. Well then, then I say,

okay, I can see that far, and I want to hold it a bit.

And say, the other voices in this were Great Britain and the US,

that I mentioned. In Great Britain, one would have to go back

and look at the colonization process, the development of the Commonwealth.

What is it? I'm not too sure how many nations are in the Commonwealth.

Right. Quite a number. I don't get .

But it's a good percentage of countries around the globe.

This was part of the British Empire expansionism,

which was what we were concerned about.

So they did that through trade.

And the range of things, the Opium Wars,

which brought them into conflict with China,

the annexation of Hong Kong.

Sixty-five Hong Kong country. Fifty-six, sorry.

Right. And the story of Taiwan's breakaway, what was that?

How far back were you going?

Well, what was the story of why Taiwan moved away from mainland China,

broke away in terms of culture and society rather than geographically.

And why? Geologically.

Come on, little bit.

I think it was the name that goes with that.

You're right. Because that's a phrase in Beni and James in our language.

Was that Singapore or Taiwan?

I have a feeling China and Taiwan.

I think it's Singapore and Taiwan.

What is the history of the relationship between China and Taiwan?

Wikipedia, Taiwan would probably tell you a story.

I was just doing the Chinese civil wars, not throwing it back.

I'm going to put the stitch on.

There's been several for at least , years.

ancestors of Taiwanese indigenous people settled the island about , years ago.

The th century, large-scale Han Chinese, specifically the Hakkas and Hoklos,

immigration to western Taiwan began under a Dutch colony.

Six thousand years ago.

th century.

Six thousand was the indigenous population.

Yes, listening.

Let me go from here.

Taiwan has been settled for at least , years.

Indigenous Taiwanese people , years ago.

In the th century, Han Chinese immigrated to western Taiwan under a Dutch colony.

The Dutch colony became the first predominantly Han Chinese state in Taiwanese history.

The island was annexed in by the Qing Dynasty of China and ceded to the Empire of Japan in .

The Republic of China, which had overthrown the Qing in , took control of Taiwan following the surrender of Japan in .

Japan would renounce sovereignty over Taiwan in .

Immediate resumption of the Chinese civil war resulted in the loss of the Chinese mainland to communist forces who established the People's Republic of China.

The Republic of China overthrew the Qing Dynasty in .

The Republic of China took control of Taiwan following World War II in .

That's where the original conflict came.

Japan surrendered and then gave...

And there hold on to Taiwan?

Right, yeah.

So then Japan renounced sovereignty over Taiwan in , about years later.

And then the Chinese civil war resumed in I guess.

And so I'm thinking here from another headbreaker, and then just say we've got a Han population in West Taiwan.

I don't know, it doesn't say how big, whether they've... their numbers there.

But China, from the sounds of this, they claim to that area or all of them.

The entirety of Taiwan.

I think so.

Due to that Han population at some stage.

I don't have a problem with that.

Let's look at Chinese civil war and see, I think that's what we need to be looking at.

So Chinese civil war is put between the Republic of China and Chinese Communist Party from until .

And then with Communist control of Mainland China.

Right.

German now, would that be?

I think.

That was the...

Looks like, yeah.

And that was the thing, the population was booming after the war.

And that was just kind of China's...

You know, we were the one of China's first big attempts to...

Yeah, territorial changes.

Chinese Communist control of Mainland China.

People's Republic of China established in Mainland China.

And government of the Republic of China evacuated to the island of Taiwan.

Ah, yes.

So they would have gone to the Han population area, I would imagine.

But, yeah, a refuge.

So they were...

King of Quidworth.

Communist gain control of Mainland...

I think it was the first mention of Taiwan.

So that was the people's...

This is the first mention of Taiwan.

So the Communist gain control of Mainland China and established the People's Republic, BRC, in ,

forcing the leadership of the Republic of China, the people, the previous people that took over from...

the Qing Dynasty to retreat to the island of Taiwan.

Starting off in the s, a lasting political and military stand-off between the two sides of Taiwan Strait

have been sued with the Republic of China in Taiwan and the People's Republic of China in Mainland China.

So, right, that's the question.

So which one is the real China?

Because the original government of China fled to Taiwan...

Yes.

And then...

Now, once back.

Well, sorry, the Communists say...

And then the Communists go, Mainland China.

Communists say, well, if you guys are China, then we're the real China, and then you're part of us.

And then Taiwan says, well, we fled here and we're the original government.

So if you're going to say you're China, then you guys should be part of us.

Yes.

Yes.

Well, that's a pretty complex history.

Not much different with the... anyway.

It's just world history.

It's interesting one to follow up a bit there.

So, okay.

We were looking at the British garage.

The garage.

And their reaches reached into the Americans.

The more Americans.

Was it the Tea Party?

Yeah, the Tea Party.

And the last of the more Americans.

The Great Northern Trading Company.

And others.

They still had the main big Mya type store.

I forgot its name now.

It was still the major clothing provider, I suppose, I'm going to say.

They were the cars up to my type of equivalent.

So that was all the British trading, all right.

It was trade and ownership.

And that got the British trying to out of the Meritor.

That was the Boston Tea Party.

And the War of Independence.

And the War of Independence.

That was over slavery.

And freedom from the Crown.

Yes, it became both.

Yes.

But the trigger was slavery and...

But that was after the effect of genocide of the native peoples.

Wait, no.

Americans have a war with slavery, wasn't it?

Yes, that's correct.

That's not the War of Independence.

The War of Independence.

Would be independence from Britain.

That's correct.

Not from the Boston Tea Party.

Oh, wait, it's Israel.

What, an American Revolutionary War?

And so do Americans.

British and the French.

US and Allied.

Paris Treaty, British recognition of US and...

The British and the French would push north.

Oh, no, this is right.

The American Revolutionary War must have proceeded the Civil War,

turned into the Civil War, because...

territorial changes, great Britain, siege control of all territories,

east of the Mississippi River and south of the Great Lakes,

and the Lawrence River to the United States.

Sorry, but, yeah,

yeah, it's got the Benjamin Franklin and George Washington issue.

Right.

So that begins the commandment of the junior army.

It was the conflict of the American Revolution in which

American Patriot forces and the George Washington's command

defeated the British, right, and not the South,

establishing and securing independence of the United States.

Whereas, yeah, American Civil War was over whether or not...

the South was allowed to do slavery.

Yeah.

Yeah, so that was effectively...

the Union drove the British in the west

above the border with the parallel now anyway,

Canadian border region.

And they did the same with the French.

They pushed them to the other side of the Lawrence River.

How does Americans...

That's the way we got the British...

and French country of Canada.

Which is a bit of a hybrid, but interesting.

The Commonwealth country.

The USSR?

That's correct.

That's what the war independence was about.

So, so, so, then we look at the Americas

and try and all we...

First off, we need to look at Britain, okay?

On the scale of, let's say,

an equivalent of China with its good works

in its megastructure projects, its belt and road,

then what is Britain doing in that regard?

What is Britain doing?

In publishing its citizens, I guess.

In publishing its own population, right.

Okay.

So then we need to look at the Americans.

We need to look at what their biggest expenditure outside

of our country is, and that's military bases and spy systems.

One of the same, isn't it good yet?

Mm-hmm.

Which comes back to my axes of state power.

Mm-hmm.

With the lower of the police and the military.

Mm-hmm.

And the historic ties with the...

Papal states, which was the military.

Yes, right, right.

It's like, well, if you don't cooperate with the Papal state,

then they're gonna fucking send their military after you.

Mm-hmm.

And their military's bigger than the Crown.

That's right.

And you've got all these fucking, you know,

effectively sleeper agents, you just turn around and say,

well, back in the war with England, so if you're a good Catholic...

I missed that.

Hang on.

I said you've got effectively all these sleeper agents where you say,

oh, well, the Vatican's at war with England now because you didn't cooperate.

Mm-hmm.

And now I've got all these fucking citizens of yours

that are gonna listen to my word over yours.

And we're okay in the US because we've got a Catholic-esque person.

Um...

That's important.

I'm still thinking the Vatican overpowers the Catholic president, unfortunately.

Mm-hmm, right?

Oh, it does.

The Biden is not...

Biden doesn't claim authority because of the...

Biden claims authority under democracy.

You just act against this Christian...

He's a Catholic.

I know what he does.

Well, it's not that.

Okay.

He's listening to the Vatican over what he does.

Um, the, uh...

He does personally the fact that this is that, uh...

They still spend massive amounts of money on,

on, uh, military bases around the world.

Sure, yeah.

Okay.

So does Israel, so...

So does Israel.

Okay.

Maybe not around the world so much, but...

Well, I mean, massive arms manufacturing, so...

Okay.

Oh, yes, arms manufacturing has been, um...

And intelligence, Israel is intelligence capital of the world.

Um, we go and look further and look at Russia.

Does it have any major social projects like China has?

Yeah, it has the social project of Ukraine.

Okay, okay.

Right.

And Crimea.

Right.

Because the, uh...

The same problem exists there.

Is it...

It's the same as China and Taiwan, you know?

It must be very profitable for the, um...

The military manufacturing industry.

Yeah, I guess they do have...

Yeah.

Um...

Yeah, I don't know enough about Russia to make the same arguments they do about Russia.

I have no idea either.

But obviously there are some incentive.

I think more likely is the fact that Russia is a barren wasteland and Ukraine is less so.

Same with Crimea.

Particularly access to, like, trade routes, um...

Or, like, um...

Same for China, like Taiwan is closer then.

So what is the historic claim...

Of South China?

Of, uh...

Of, uh...

Of Ukraine by Russia.

It depends who you are.

Ah.

Same as...

Just exactly the same as China and Taiwan, like I said.

Right. It's the same way you stream.

Yeah, it just repeats well over, like...

Right. Right.

I say, your stuff's mine. You say my stuff's yours.

Right. Right.

So, um...

I'm trying to think of the highest name here, right?

What was it? Gods, Guns...

And, uh...

Gaze is what I'm feeling, but...

I'm not sure.

Um, he was an ornithologist with a bit of a speech issue that, uh...

He would be the world's knowledge bank on the birds of paradise in New Guinea.

Um, and back in the search.

Um...

Um...

The scientist of renown, um...

The way he was doing it, like he wrote it.

And, um...

See if you can find him on there.

Um...

And he'd probably more than an ornithologist with a speech impediment.

Alright, uh, what's this, uh...

Jared Diamond?

email         Print

Copyright The FAQyMe Gene © 2023. Trauma in Religion - From God to God and on to God ad infinitum Site Map XML Site Map